Here Is The Deal On November 2nd

An average of all the different polls basicaly shows a 2% lead by Bush. This is a narrow enough lead that it can be completely undone by just a slightly larger than anticipated turnout.

At this point, the guy whose people do a better job of showing up at the polls and voting is going to win the election. Every vote will count tomorrow, this is especially true in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico and even Hawaii.

You've got a clear choice between these two candidates on guns:

Kerry co-sponsored S.1431 - the bill expanding the ban on semi-auto weapons to include guns such as the Remington 1187 he was photographed with on the campaign trail.

Kerry voted twice to kill the CMP. If he doesn't trust you with 1903 bolt-actions and Garands, what does he trust you with?

Kerry voted in March to extend the assault-weapons ban.

Also in February, Ted Kennedy stood up to introduce his bill saying:

"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America." (Page S1634 of the Congressional Record, February 26, 2004)

Finally, John Kerry has a 100% record from the Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control). In 21 years in the Senate, he has never voted against them.

John Kerry voted YES (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00028) to ban .30-30 and other centerfire rifle ammo as armor-piercing.

In contrast you have George W. Bush, who during his term:

1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US (http://www.iansa.org/oldsite/calendar/2001UN/confnews/change_tone.htm)

2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_020507.html) - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.

3. Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition (http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/press/release.asp?Record=368) - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".

4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day (http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/press/release.asp?Record=368) - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy

8. Signed the appropriations bill containing the Tiahrt Amendment (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200401270928.asp) that protects gunowner privacy by making item #4 the law of the land.

9. Gets chance to have several things he claims to support (lawsuit preemption, gunshow background checks, semi-auto ban) on a single bill. Sends letter to Congress asking them to consider only lawsuit preemption.

Those are your choices. Gunowners exist in enough numbers that if we all do our part, there will be no question the pro-gun candidate will win. We have waited years to finally be in a position where we can have a pro-RKBA House, Senate and White House. If we do our part on turnout, tomorrow will be that day.

If you enjoyed reading about "Here Is The Deal On November 2nd" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

cslinger

November 1, 2004, 09:45 AM

I agree. Already voted.

Remember Vote Early and Vote Often :evil: Just kidding.

Fastlane

November 1, 2004, 09:56 AM

Voting for Bush, he is not perfect but I can't stand Kerry. Most of the people that I work with are voting for Bush and I work for an PBS Station in SW Ohio.

halvey

November 1, 2004, 10:05 AM

All the pundits seem to be saying Bush will win, but it will be close. I'm not so sure. I can see Kerry getting the electoral votes and Bush the popular vote. Kind of 2000 in reverse.

cslinger

November 1, 2004, 10:10 AM

All the pundits seem to be saying Bush will win, but it will be close. I'm not so sure. I can see Kerry getting the electoral votes and Bush the popular vote. Kind of 2000 in reverse.

I am not a huge Bush fan but as a gun owner and in a time of conflict I absolutely think he is the better idiot for the job. JFK is pretty much everything I despise rolled into one pile of s....I mean one package.

My wish is for an election where I either really like one candidate or one where I actually have a hard time choosing between the too.

As for the quote above. Right, wrong, good, bad you have to admit it would be kind of poetic justice for the left. I say this as an unbiased outside observer. I absolutely don't want it to happen but you would have to see the political irony in it.

itgoesboom

November 1, 2004, 11:32 AM

This is an easy election for me.

I disagree with several things that Bush has done.

But Kerry would be a disaster for RKBA and for our fine Country.

I voted Bush.

I.G.B.

Lone_Gunman

November 1, 2004, 11:37 AM

Did the Bush administration allow airline pilots to be armed?

Has Bush ever recanted his support for Assault Weapon Ban Renewal?

Bartholomew Roberts

November 1, 2004, 11:38 AM

There will be a ton of partisan polls released today and "woe unto us" stories by both sides. All of these are designed to do one thing - convince you not to go vote tomorrow. As a result, you'll see stories showing a clear Bush win and stories showing Kerry has it sewed up. None of that stuff matters.

The most important thing we can do now is get out and vote regardless of what the polls say. Vote, no matter what it takes to get there and drag someone of like mind with you and make sure they vote as well.

R.H. Lee

November 1, 2004, 11:43 AM

Yes, it seems it's going to be very close. Voter fraud may be at an all time high, and I expect, demand, the Republicans aggressively ferret it out after the election.

duckslayer

November 1, 2004, 12:07 PM

We used the computer touch-screen voting booths this year, so I can also forsee serious voter fraud this year. There is no paper record to verify now.

Molon Labe

November 1, 2004, 12:10 PM

Yep. and that's why I'm voting for Michael Peroutka.

R.H. Lee

November 1, 2004, 12:16 PM

Ohio's too close, Peroutka won't win, and you'll be kicking yourself for the next 4-8 years if Kerry does manage to successfully sue his way into the Whitehouse. Trust me on this, I voted for Perot.

HankB

November 1, 2004, 12:26 PM

People who voted for Perot in '92 and '96 helped elect Slick Willie. Twice.

People who voted for Nader in'00 helped elect Bush.

Gun owners who vote for Peroutka, Badnarik, etc., if they're in a battleground state are only going to help Kerry - pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Despite Bush's faults as president - and he has many - a Kerry presidency would be much, much worse. "Making a statement" by voting third party in a state where things are close may make one feel some satisfaction for a few hours, but given the possible outcome . . . :banghead:

Considering how bad Kerry would be, gun owners in battleground states should hold their noses, suppress their gag reflex, and vote for Bush.

Molon Labe

November 1, 2004, 12:27 PM

Ohio's too close, Peroutka won't win, and you'll be kicking yourself for the next 4-8 years if Kerry does manage to successfully sue his way into the Whitehouse.I know Peroutka won't win. But I don't care. I can't in good conscience vote for Bush. And if sKerry wins, so be it. If a conflict is inevitable, as some say it is, I’d rather have it happen sooner than later.

Lone_Gunman

November 1, 2004, 12:53 PM

Did the Bush administration allow airline pilots to be armed?

Has Bush ever recanted his support for Assault Weapon Ban Renewal?

oldfart

November 1, 2004, 12:53 PM

"If a conflict is inevitable, as some say it is, I’d rather have it happen sooner than later."

There won't be anything like an armed conflict. Instead, we'll have years of low-intensity disharmony. We'll see more people raided for arms violations, drug violations, paperwork violations and even traffic violations. Little by little, we'll all become outlaws, either unable to own guns or unwilling to endanger our families and positions by owning them. sitting behind keyboards in warm homes or offices, it's easy to be tough, but when the man comes to your door with an armored van and twenty black-clad troops, demanding you give up your guns or die, it'll get cold and dank very quickly.
I know, those things won't happen to everybody nor will they happen to very many, but it won't take nearly as many as you think to change your outlook.
The bad thing about all this is the fact that no matter which guy wins the oval office, the eventual outcome will be the same. I think Bush will get us ther a bit less quickly though, which may give us a chance to salvage some part of the Constitution that Kerry would waste.
Now, let's hear it from the guys who point out that things are getting better for gunowners because we now have CCW. The government also knows who has those permits too. When (not 'IF') the government finally decides to get tough, who will be on the top of their list to visit?

NoHarmNoFAL

November 1, 2004, 12:57 PM

Did the Bush administration allow airline pilots to be armed?

Has Bush ever recanted his support for Assault Weapon Ban Renewal?

Your point?

TooTaxed

November 1, 2004, 01:00 PM

I'm retired, have time on my hands (when I'm not at the range or reloading!), have two computers and a cable connection, and early became fascinated with researching the various campaign issues to get all the available pro and con facts. When possible, that is...some issues are based on religion (stem cell research, e.g.) or personal predudices (gotta put gun control here, as sell as gay laws, social security, ect).

Early on discovered that the positions are largely based on partial facts and carefully selected facts, omitting any that would not be beneficial to the stated position. Interestingly, found that when all facts are gathered...and if you dig, it's surprising what's out there!... (e.g., for Bush's Air National Guard duty: timeline, annual flight hours/year v. minimum required, request for leave to campaign, Air National Guard policy at the time, annual evaluations, superior's comments, ect.) the Republican positions were vindicated...including the Democratic issues on the 17% Medicare cost increase, plot to institute the draft. Kerry's Vietnam combat experience has lots of documentation, mostly from the anti-Kerry side...except that I've been unable to get much in favor of Kerry, despite two requests to the Democratic Campaign Office. His post war blasting of the Vietnam American soldiers is well recorded, but not well backed by facts I could find. It is clear that he is an impressive orator and has amply demonstrated his ability to sway minds through oratory.

Although I find much in the Democratic campaign planks to like, Bush has to be the choice. The overriding issue is national security, Bush has shown himself to be decisive and strong, and Kerry's anti-fellow veteran diatribes and desire to discuss and negotiate for favorable European opinion before acting convince me that he is not the person to lead us in an international campaign against terrorism. And, of course, his anti-gun possession support...if he wins and gets his way, four years from now it will be a miracle if we still have our semi-automatics and large bore cartridge rifles...there can be no compensation program, just toss them in a bin for the chopper.:banghead:

NoHarmNoFAL

November 1, 2004, 01:00 PM

Old Fart, give it up if they haven't seen the light now they never will. I just want to keep record of all those Idealogs that voted third party when they were really needed and then to cry when .22 LR is $25.00/50. You vote your conscience, good for you and thanks a lot remind me to rely on your conscience in a pinch.

garrettwc

November 1, 2004, 01:20 PM

In addition to the excellent examples given by Bart Roberts, I would like to add the following:

The make up of the judiciary, from Federal Districts all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Support for our troops and the security of our country.

There are probably dozens of others, that have been hased and rehashed here over the last few months.

I will be at the polls when the doors open. I will be encouraging my friends, both decided and undecided to go to the polls and vote as well. The future of our country is at stake.

I for one, will stand up and be counted.

See you at the polls.

Gordon Fink

November 1, 2004, 01:34 PM

John Kerry will win California. If all the California Libertarians, Greens, and communists were to vote for G. W. Bush and were to prevent an equal number of Democrats from voting, then John Kerry would still win California.

Therefore, even if I thought G. W. Bush were marginally better than Kerry, which I don’t, I still wouldn’t vote for him.

~G. Fink

Sam Adams

November 1, 2004, 01:50 PM

Did the Bush administration allow airline pilots to be armed?

Has Bush ever recanted his support for Assault Weapon Ban Renewal?

Guys, one thing that you have to understand is that no one is perfect - NO ONE. Not you, me, your wives (if you've got one) or your parents, nor mine. Yet, I chose my wife (and she chose me) as my parents chose each other, knowing full well that the other person wasn't perfect, just better than the rest. You, if married, chose your wife on the same basis, as she did you, and as your parents chose each other. The point here is that this world ISN'T about perfection, its about doing the best you can with what you're handed. You work toward perfection by trying to improve things, but to expect perfection in ANY field of endeavor is wholely unrealistic and impractical.

Right now, this election is realistically between two people, admittedly both imperfect on most issues. The least bad choice is Bush. Kerry is the wrong person to be making foreign and defense policy, the wrong guy to be making tax policy, the wrong guy to be making health care policy, etc., etc. He is ABSOLUTELY the wrong guy to be making policy regarding the RKBA.

You can sulk and complain about Bush being imperfect - and you'd be right - but that won't help you or anyone else (most especially us gunowners). I have many complaints about Bush myself, and if this was a primary I surely would be voting for someone else. But this ISN'T the primary, it is the General, and the alternative is a left-wing, anti-gun, military-hating, tax-raising, UN-loving freak, who has the endorsement of Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand and Yassir Arafat, among other notable scumbags. Bush is far from perfect, but not nearly so as Kerry. Kerry, in fact, is the antithesis of what I want in a President or other leader on every level.

Think, man! Can you possibly want someone in office who has voted to basically ban all centerfire rifle ammo? Someone endorsed with a 100% rating from the Brady Bunch, someone who makes Ted Kennedy look moderate? For this you'd be willing to sacrifice a guy who told the UN to eff-off when it came to registering guns and limiting availability of same, a guy who artfully allowed the AWB to expire, who signed CHL legislation in Texas less than 10 years ago, and who is pursuing Bin Laden and his ilk to the ends of the earth? That makes no sense to me, and I'm no Bush cheerleader. THINK, THINK, THINK!!!

Molon Labe, you said I know Peroutka won't win. But I don't care. I can't in good conscience vote for Bush. And if sKerry wins, so be it. If a conflict is inevitable, as some say it is, I’d rather have it happen sooner than later.

I cannot think of a more selfish, impractical, anti-social point of view than voting for the worst available realistic alternative, and hoping for lots of pain, repression, etc., so as to advance the likelihood and timing of a civil war. I think that you should review this Winston Churchill quote before you cast your vote:

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Third_Rail

November 1, 2004, 01:55 PM

Kerry is going to win MA.

I'm voting Libertarian.

Mr. James

November 1, 2004, 02:15 PM

Gun owners who vote for Peroutka, Badnarik, etc., if they're in a battleground state are only going to help Kerry - pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Respectfully, HankB, I concede no such point. A refresher from pax's math-made-simple: To paraphrase, if 13,550 High Roaders vote for Bush, and 29 High Roaders vote for Lurch, and Mr. James votes for Peroutka, how many votes has Bush? How many votes has Lurch? My vote for Peroutka or Badnarik or Nader won't add or subtract one vote from either of the Skull-n-Bones twins.

The make up of the judiciary, from Federal Districts all the way up to the Supreme Court
garett, true enough. But when have Bush or the Repugnicoward majority in the Senate ever stood up to the socialist special-pleaders who've managed to scuttle dozens of Bush appointees? Hell, the Senate GOP caucus has essentially surrendered on the idea of a filibuster-proof "super-majority" being required to confirm an apellate-level judge.

Well, at least if President Jean-Francois Kerry nominates Charles Schumer to the Supreme Court, maybe then the Republicans will actually exercise their majority, right? :scrutiny: We're not still setting out cookies and milk for the jolly fat man, are we?

What has this republic come to that in a nation of some 300 milllion souls, our fate rests in the hands of two guys who went to the same school, and were members of the same fifteen-member-a-year secret fraternity at roughly the same time?

Nader was right. :what: We don't have a two-party system, we have a one-party system: The Incumbent Party.

Woe is us.

Finally, and back to your regularly scheduled Bush apologetics:

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.
- John Adams

R.H. Lee

November 1, 2004, 02:22 PM

Although I understand and even agree with the third party voters, I can't fathom how voting for a foregone loser is going to gain you anything. All politics are local, and unless you've done your "grassroots" work, you're just a disgruntled spoiler, IMO.

ReadyontheRight

November 1, 2004, 02:27 PM

Respectfully -- The time to push the libertarian agenda is the 4 years between elections, not on election day 2004.

John Kerry would dim the star of our nation.

George Bush will, unfortunately, likely expand the Federal government. He will also pursue a very simple, straightforward, non-nuanced strategy regarding terrorism -- we win, they lose.

On November 2, I ask you to vote for George Bush.

On November 3, you have a number of options:

1. You could sit back for 4 years and complain that "the lesser of two evils is still evil".
2. You could work hard to build the strength of your favorite 3rd party -- you maybe even could work to form a coalition of "small government" 3rd parties -- you have FOUR YEARS.
3. You could get involved with either of the major parties to push them back toward a government by, of and for the people -- based on Liberty and limited government powers.

In 2004, my vote WILL count, so will yours. This is the most important election I can remember.

We can choose to fight against those who would change the course of our lives by killing innocents or we can choose to make America a larger, more violent France.

It's up to you.

2nd Amendment

November 1, 2004, 02:36 PM

I'll vote Bush, of course. That sKerry creature is too scary. And then, either way, I'll spend the next four years trying to build my pet project, though any presidential candidate would take much longer than a mere 4 years. As usual, click the Sig link...

HankB

November 1, 2004, 02:41 PM

if 13,550 High Roaders vote for Bush, and 29 High Roaders vote for Lurch, and Mr. James votes for Peroutka, how many votes has Bush? How many votes has Lurch? My vote for Peroutka or Badnarik or Nader won't add or subtract one vote from either of the Skull-n-Bones twins. Mr. James, we differ on this. If there were a state called TheHighRoad, I don't believe it would be a battleground state - the numbers you chose to use in your own example suggest it wouldn't even be close. By all means, in that case go ahead and vote for a third party - I would likely do the same myself, as I'm no fan of Bush. In such a case, you can make a statement without fear of unpleasant consequences.

However, if "TheHighRoad" state polls predicted 6789 for Bush, 6789 for Lurch, with a margin of error of two . . . then casting one's vote for a third party rather than casting it - however reluctantly - for Bush could well be decisive in handing the victory to sKerry. Battleground states are different.

Standing on principle is well and good, so long as you understand and appreciate the consequences, and - preferably - refrain from complaining about the outcome afterwards.

This debate reminds me of a commercial I saw for a TV show. A retiree, speaking to his daughter and son in law (or son and daughter in law?) says words to the effect of "Always speak your mind and never take garbage from anybody - I never did when I was your age, I always said what I meant and didn't care who heard!"

The response is "Yeah, which is why today you have no pension, no benefits, and you live in our basement." :rolleyes:

bogie

November 1, 2004, 02:45 PM

Did the Bush administration allow airline pilots to be armed?

Has Bush ever recanted his support for Assault Weapon Ban Renewal?

I thought airline pilots are armed now?

Doesn't really matter, because if someone tries a hijack now, the passengers will tear 'em to pieces. I won't be pretty.

As for the AWB renewal - He knew it'd never make it to his desk. And I'm sure he told most of the congresscritters that he didn't want it to make it to his desk. Works for me.

Sam Adams

November 1, 2004, 02:56 PM

Here's some more stuff for you to consider:

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000111.html

And from Kim DuToit http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/weblog.php [This is the 11:59AM posting]

I'm not going to tell anyone how to vote tomorrow. Suffice it to say that before you punch that hanging chad, please bear in mind what a vote for any Democrat would entail. This is the party whose platform can be summarized as follows:

Lonewolf,
Are you the only one that doesn't realize that when GWB made that statement he was campaigning for votes and he could afford to say it, knowing full well that there was no way in the world that the AWB would ever come back to his desK? He was posturing, pure and simple. He wanted to appear a little softer to the "reasonable gun control" crowd. The Demoncrats had learned how popular it was the first time when they lost control of the house because of it. The Republicans learned from their example.

Mr. James

November 1, 2004, 03:29 PM

Hello, HankB,

I owe you an apology. You're right about using the THR "state" analogy - I was trying to be flip, using the actual numbers of THR members, and our decided leanings towards one of the two major-party candidates. I did not, in any way, mean to understate the importance of votes in those battleground states. I stand by the proposition, however, that if I vote FOR one candidate, that cannot be read as a vote AGAINST another, unless that was my intention in casting the ballot all along.

As for the more-realistic numbers you suggest, rather than looking to polls, let's suppose these are actual votes: 6789 for Bush, 6789 for Lurch. If I, benighted soul that I am, have the temerity to stumble into a voting both and press "PEROUTKA," how many votes has Bush? How many has Lurch? I refuse to decide my vote based on the margin of error. God, this entire election is an error, a farce. :mad:

Please, I entend no slight to you or the thousands who will, in fact, vote for Bush because the alternative is too horrific to contemplate. Reasonable minds can certainly differ, and a few cycles ago, I'd have been right beside you. I certainly don't presume to know the answers, and it may well be that when Madame President Clinton sends me to the gulag, and I'm in the camps counting my bed lice ("AVENGE ME, BOY!!!"), I'll have enough time before I'm sent to the wall to contemplate that misbegotten vote for a principled candidate.

As for complaining about the outcome, the visceral response is to join you. But suppose I vote for Bush and he loses? Do I thereby waive my right to form opinions upon and speak out about the performance of the resulting Kerry administration? Of course not.

So, too, the voter for a Peroutka or Badnarik does not renounce his citizenship. I reserve all rights to yowl, pee & moan, rend garments, gnash teeth, etc. irrespective of the outcome on 3 November (or 3 April if the Demo lawyers have their way).

Sam Adams, I have, indeed, considered all those things. Give me a few minutes and I could produce a remarkably similar list under President Bush's name, to include, inter alia higher taxes (stay tuned - someone's gonna pay for NCLB and Great Society, Jr.), gun control, socialized medicine, half-stepping leadership in Iraq, racism, teachers unions, gun control, lax immigration controls (Asa Hutchinson, pick up the white courtesy phone...), gun control... All that would be lacking would be the roster of America-lasters, freedom haters, has-beens, fellow-travelers and useful idiots who swarm like flies to dung to the Kerry camp.

Whether by bullet train or electric-deisel, both parties are taking us to the same place. The only way to fix it is to work for change, either within the elephant party (as the Liberty Caucus is attempting), or without.

As for "Tweedledum is a mouthbreathing ignoramus but Tweedledee is Beelzebub," this election I am voting FOR someone, rather than against.

All I can say, is pray, and pray hard. Fasting may be in order, too. I'll close with a quote from another Adams, John Quincy:
Duty is ours; results are God's.

Gordon Fink

November 1, 2004, 04:17 PM

You could work hard to build the strength of your favorite 3rd party—you maybe even could work to form a coalition of “small government” 3rd parties—you have FOUR YEARS.

We will continue to work hard, but at best we have only one year until the next “most important election in our lifetime.”™

~G. Fink

BenW

November 1, 2004, 04:37 PM

Did the Bush administration allow airline pilots to be armed?
Has Bush ever recanted his support for Assault Weapon Ban Renewal?
I suggest you read Clayton Cramer's article posted on another thread here for perspective on your statements.

R.H. Lee

November 1, 2004, 04:41 PM

We will continue to work hard, but at best we have only one year until the next “most important election in our lifetime.”™
That should be enough time to get some 3rd party member elected somewhere. Get crackin' :p

Gusgus

November 1, 2004, 04:47 PM

I still find it hard to believe, but this is one Libertarian of 12 years that's voting Bush tomorrow.

Lone_Gunman

November 1, 2004, 06:33 PM

I find it interesting that no one is willing to just answer my questions "No".

Instead, what I get is a series of convoluted explanations why its ok for Bush to support the AWB, but its not OK for Kerry to support it.

Someone cited that Bush had made it legal for cargo pilots to carry guns. When I asked if he had made it legal for airline pilots to do the same, someone answered that it did not matter if pilots carried guns. So which is it? If it doesnt matter if they carry guns, then it doesnt matter if Bush eliminated barriers to cargo pilots doing it.

I know Bush is not perfect, so that doesnt need to be explained to me. I figured that out just a few months after he took office.

He signed the largest increase in government welfare since LBJ. He has expanded government bureaucracy in ways we have not seen in years. He has limited the First Amendment by signing campaign finance reform, despite saying he thought it was un-Constitutional. In a particularly sickening orgy of bi-partisanship he and Teddy Kennedy gave us "No Child Left Behind". We have clearly found out that "compassionate conservative" and "neo-conservative" are just synonyms for liberal.

The fact the the greatest nation on earth can field candidates for its highest office who are no better then Bush and Kerry is astounding to me. There is no hope for the Republic if our choices are Bush and Kerry.

Yes, I agree Bush is better than Kerry. So what?

And for everyone's information, I am not a third party proponent. I am a life long Republican. I voted for Bush in 2000, and donated money to his 2000 campaign. He's had four years, and has been nothing but a disappointment. I am not telling anyone not to vote for him. I agree he is better than Kerry, and if that is your only criteria for selecting a President, then I guess go for it.

R.H. Lee

November 1, 2004, 06:41 PM

There is no hope for the Republic if our choices are Bush and Kerry.
That's just temporary. Both the LP & CP are developing viable, electable candidates as we speak. :rolleyes:

one45auto

November 1, 2004, 06:45 PM

I'm definitely going with Bush, as nothing short of a direct commandment from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ descending to earth accompanied by hosts of angels will persuade me to vote for John Kerry. Heck, even then I'd be doing it reluctantly and with my one hand holding my nose.

Sam Adams

November 1, 2004, 06:55 PM

Lone Gunman,

As you well know, Bush is a politician. Being a successful politician requires being elected to office, and staying there for a long enough time to do anything worthwhile usually requires getting elected again (at least for the President). As such, Bush attempted to disarm (pun intended) the rabid anti-gunners by saying that he'd sign the AWB renewal IF it got to his desk. Notice that it didn't get there, and notice that even a dimbulb like Kerry called him on it - Bush didn't push for it at all. I'd go further: I'll bet that Bush told Tom DeLay and the rest of the Republican leadership in the House that the bill had better not reach his desk. Bush isn't stupid, and he is certainly aware that he's not merely a retired governor because of the fact that Al Gore pi$$ed off gun owners by talking about registration and thereby losing his own home state, West Virginia and Arkansas. Bush isn't so stupid, therefor, as to have pushed for the bill and to have wanted to sign it. He hoped to get rid of some criticism from the lunatic anti-gun fringe while not upsetting us...otherwise known as walking the tightrope. To come out at any time before the election tomorrow and to say "I won't ever renew the AWB" would be the height of political folly. He might gain a few thousand or tens of thousands of votes from the likes of you, but he'd give the Kerrys and the Sarah Bradys of this world the biggest PR gift that they could imagine. Most people understand that Bush is limited in a practical sense in what he can say, at least until after tomorrow. I wish that you did, because every vote will count. Heaven help us if Kerry wins.

Again, this is politics (or part of it). I don't really give a damn what someone says, I care about what they DO. Which is why Kerry can never be allowed to be President - he'll say anything and look reasonably sincere in doing so, but his record speaks to the opposite of any sensible thing that he actually says.

BTW, I have a question for you: Will President John Kerry be better, the same or worse for the rights of gun owners than the Presidency of George W. Bush has been? The answer is obvious, but I'll let you ponder it for a while.

confinedbythecurtain

November 1, 2004, 06:57 PM

Im in the PRK, so my Bush vote wont matter... I ve seemed peeve all the tree hugging hippies out here though!

Sam Adams

November 1, 2004, 07:00 PM

By the way, if you're in a state where the outcome is in little doubt, then by all means vote your conscience. In that case, 1 vote more or less for either Bush or Kerry would be meaningless. My other comments only address those like Molon Labe who live in "Battleground" states. My vote in TX is nearly meaningless, as Bush will get at least 60%, and yours may well be as meaningless if you're in any one of most other southern states.

Lone_Gunman

November 1, 2004, 07:05 PM

Will President John Kerry be better, the same or worse for the rights of gun owners than the Presidency of George W. Bush has been? The answer is obvious, but I'll let you ponder it for a while.

I already know we are going to be in disagreement on the answer Sam, but I am willing to engage in discussion.

I think Kerry and Bush will have exactly the same effect on gun ownership. The rhetoric will be different, but the effect will be the same.

The only time Congressional Republicans grow a spine and act like conservatives is when a Democrat is in the White House.

If Bush decided to push for AWB renewal (which I realize is unlikely), I have no doubt the Republicans would roll over and give it to him.

However, if Kerry asked for the same, I think the same Republicans would fight like hell to keep it from happening.

I think partisan politics of having the executive and legislative branches controlled by different parties would be very beneficial to the Republic. The only time we are safe from either side is when they are fighting against each other.

Finally, Sam, don't lose any sleep tonight about me not voting for Bush. I live in Georgia, and I assure you he is going to win massively here.

Sam Adams

November 1, 2004, 07:19 PM

If Bush decided to push for AWB renewal (which I realize is unlikely), I have no doubt the Republicans would roll over and give it to him.

Possibly. However, the probability of him asking for it is between slim and none. How does it benefit him or his Party? Also, many Republicans would oppose it, and possibly kill it. One that comes to mind is Coburn of OK. Assuming that he wins tomorrow, the Senate will have a one-man Republican filibuster machine in place, and I expect him to kill a lot of lousy bills. I agree that if Kerry proposed the same bill, the R's would grow a pair and fight it (but maybe not, after all, look at Bob Dole's actions in the mid-'90's).

I think partisan politics of having the executive and legislative branches controlled by different parties would be very beneficial to the Republic. The only time we are safe from either side is when they are fighting against each other.

I also prefer divided government, as a general rule, and for the same reason. I'm sure that you'd agree that the only reason we had some control over spending in the '90's was that Slick Willie and Hitlery so frightened the public that the R's won the Congress, thereby killing the Dem's dreams. However, it is highly unlikely that we're going to have a Democratic Congress this time around, and Kerry will be SO bad on foreign and defense policy (where the Congress has a LOT less to say, if anything) that this outweighs my normal preference. Divided government is great, but not at the expense of our security.

Glad to hear that you're from a safe Bush state - vote for Badnarik or whomever with a clear conscience and no squawking from this gun owner.

Gordon Fink

November 1, 2004, 07:33 PM

How does it benefit him or his Party?

Because being “a successful politician requires being elected to office, and staying there for a long enough time to do anything worthwhile usually requires getting elected again.…” G. W. Bush must continue to make the Republican Party appear “moderate,” so that it can attract more voters in 2008. By engineering a renewal of the “assault-weapons” ban, he could further “disarm … the rabid anti-gunners.” In fact, if he doesn’t push for “reasonable” gun-control legislation, he risks giving “the Kerrys and the Sarah Bradys of this world the biggest PR gift that they could imagine.”

~G. Fink

GSB

November 1, 2004, 07:42 PM

I cannot think of a more selfish, impractical, anti-social point of view than voting for the worst available realistic alternative, and hoping for lots of pain, repression, etc., so as to advance the likelihood and timing of a civil war.

Well said. I don't find the whole blaze-of-glory fantasy to be very appealing -- but I'm hovering around middle age now, and I think the youthful passions tend to moderate a bit over time.

There are certainly more constructive ways to nudge the system right or left than hoping for bloody revolution -- we're not living in China or Stalinist Russia after all. Historically, revolutions tend not to be particularly glorious, nor have particularly pretty outcomes. America is a rarity. Heck, even France, center of the Enlightenment, celebrated its revolution on the edge of guillotine blade and ended up with that nice Napoleon fellow in charge not long after (he didn't get every male in France killed, you have to give him that -- although it does appear he culled most of the courageous ones out of that particular gene pool).

For Pete's sake, if you look at the whole sweep of human civilization, the United States in the year 2004 is a pretty darn good place to be, warts aplenty and all. Actively hoping for it to fall into ruin so I can play at being Light Horse Harry just doesn't really do it for me anymore.

RealGun

November 2, 2004, 05:58 AM

We never give up justifying our thinking and dissing other choices. I would be interested in knowing how many were swayed by any of this stuff over the last year, starting about April, as I recall. I think it's interesting and frequently educational to read other's views, but I also think those who tried to sway votes more than simply express themselves were spitting into the wind. In the end, voting is essentially partisan, I think.

The thing that's interesting to me is how when major parties are well matched, third party voters and the formerly undecided seem to really determine the outcome. That's kind of a mix between the elegantly knowledgeable and the politically ignorant or gullible.

My hope is that third party voters will get some attention but not create consequences for electable parties that will be extremely regrettable, both to me and all gun owners as well as in light of what those third party platforms really represent. As a conservative, I wouldn't welcome any sudden change in course for this country. I wouldn't endorse "gridlock" either, because I expect Congress to be productive and uphold the Constitution, silly me.

What is disturbing is how many seem to be against the whole system, experts at criticizing candidates and other's choices. A closer look reveals to me that they are actually revolutionaries in many cases, anti-establishment in general, representatives of radical notions. I would want to make it clear that such does not represent me and that I would not want to see that represented as the most intelligent position for a gun owner. I will not be intimidated. I freely accept the need for change, but I would want it to occur in a stable society and economy. Incremental change would need to be the norm, so I would not support any overnight successes by relatively radical third parties. To me, they would be welcome to gradually gain more positions throughout government, but fielding Presidential candidates prematurely, long before they have the faintest hope of winning, is very counterproductive for lots of reasons, in my opinion.

griz

November 2, 2004, 08:40 AM

Although I understand and even agree with the third party voters, I can't fathom how voting for a foregone loser is going to gain you anything.

So in a state such as New York that WILL go to Kerry, a vote for Bush is wasted?

RealGun

November 2, 2004, 10:15 AM

So in a state such as New York that WILL go to Kerry, a vote for Bush is wasted?

That reasoning (to vote third party in NY) seems valid enough. I can think of a couple problems with it. Number one, much will be made of how close the nationwide popular vote is. We have seen that before. Number two, the point spread between first and second place in NY will be greater, allowing more meaning to be imparted to it. The saying "every vote counts" applies everywhere.

TearsOfRage

November 2, 2004, 11:07 AM

If a conflict is inevitable, as some say it is, I’d rather have it happen sooner than later.

It makes me sick to my stomach :barf: to vote for our current oppressors, but it's making more and more strategic sense.

If I'm gonna have to fight tyranny, I'd rather do it with guns than without.
And I'd rather have the liberals & democrats with me in opposing King George than against me... they're good at getting people to show up at demonstrations, etc.

R.H. Lee

November 2, 2004, 11:08 AM

So in a state such as New York that WILL go to Kerry, a vote for Bush is wasted? Tyranny of the majority? No, because either Bush or Kerry WILL win. The 3rd party guy will not, and we know that in advance. The "popular vote" has also recently become an issue lending to the influence of a President.

R.H. Lee

November 2, 2004, 11:15 AM

Besides, a Kerry win will only turn the country farther LEFT and make you Libertarians look even more extreme and radical. You will be more marginalized than you already are, and your chances of ever prevailing will lessen.

Chew on that.

Cellar Dweller

November 2, 2004, 04:04 PM

No, because either Bush or Kerry WILL win. The 3rd party guy will not, and we know that in advance. The "popular vote" has also recently become an issue lending to the influence of a President.

So there's no sense in voting for a third-party candidate because there's no chance of winning, but many THR'ers claim they would vote third-party if a third-party was viable.

Well, if nobody VOTES for third-party candidates, they must be agreeing with the Dem or Repub party, 'cause they're SURELY not dissenting at the ballot box.

I have a choice of (D)Obama, (R)Keyes, (LP)Kohn), and(independent)Frantzen for Senate.
Obama has all the endorsements and polls show him in the 65-70% range. Do I vote for him because "he's the winner?"
Keyes was brought in late because IL-GOP dropped the ball. Do I vote for him to show GOP solidarity?
Kohn and Frantzen have no chance of winning, so I shouldn't vote for either by your logic.

If Keyes loses 60-38, then the IL-GOP idiots who caused this mess in the first place will still be in charge ("could have done better if we started sooner"). If he loses 77-20, or better still comes in BEHIND Kohn or Frantzen (or both, combined), then the IL-GOP will have to change or die. Therefore, I'm choosing to sacrifice Keyes to get rid of the IL-GOP dummies, even though I'd vote for him otherwise.

Kerry, like Obama, is a lock in IL. Therefore, I'm gonna sacrifice my GOP vote with a clean conscience. If Bush loses by 1 vote in IL, you can blame me. If Bush wins big in the electorate but loses big in the popular vote, perhaps then the national GOP will get the message.

Clinton or McCain in 2008? I don't wanna go there...

:evil:

griz

November 2, 2004, 05:28 PM

That's the part that seems contridictary to me. The only way to gain power is to vote for a party that has a chance of winning and influence the party from within. The only exception to that is in a state that will go Dem for sure, then it's OK to vote Rep. Admittedly the Reps have a chance overall, but not the state. So it seems more a defence of the two party system than an argument against voting principles.

2nd Amendment

November 2, 2004, 05:33 PM

No, the point is that come election day it is too late. When we know that no 3rd party has made any serious effort to field a presidential candidate that can win, voting for one on election day "on principle" is a waste. The time to protest is the four years in between. Now is the time to get Bush in and keep Kerry out, then spend the next four years building up a viable alternative to either "main" party.

RealGun

November 2, 2004, 06:13 PM

So there's no sense in voting for a third-party candidate because there's no chance of winning, but many THR'ers claim they would vote third-party if a third-party was viable.

I might easily vote for a Libertarian if it wasn't for President. I am not ready for Senator either, given a solid alternative. The Senate needs partisan strength. But there are libertarians in the GOP.

I believe the LP, or any third party, needs to build its base first, seeding Congress with several more people. Those candidates will not come from nowhere either. The LP also needs to downplay platform planks that make people's eyes roll. It is way too specific...pretty scary stuff without the background. The Republican Liberty Caucus will be taken seriously when and if they do the same. As it is, the movement is too vulnerable to ridicule.

LP is requiring people to have read all the right books first. I don't see that as populist at all. It's a hard sell, if you ask me. It will not suddenly appeal to conservatives, because they don't like overnight changes and will not buy into an LP President with virtually no allies in Washington. You will only get secular conservatives in any case. The Constitution Party is claiming the church/state "conservatives". The rest are quickly dominating the GOP. If they do literally take over, becoming a Christian party, it would be a good chance for newer parties to annex large chunks of the GOP electorate who want to just stick to essential government, fairly strict about abiding by the Constitution or more interested in representing all ethnic groups and forms of religion in this country's government.

griz

November 2, 2004, 10:48 PM

LP is requiring people to have read all the right books first.

Your'e right about that. The Constitutuion is a good place to start.

And it's hard to start small and work up if your platform is a smaller government. Hard sell too.

RealGun

November 3, 2004, 04:03 AM

And it's hard to start small and work up if your platform is a smaller government. Hard sell too.

Perhaps a soup that needs some more water in the form of pragmatism. An all or nothing choice might invoke too many "nothing" reactions, leaving too small a group of purists to really get anywhere. I find it very telling that even the Republican Liberty Caucus as an alternate strategy has not made a single compromise in their platform, a carbon copy of the LP platform. Until there is some attempt to be compatible with the GOP, they are wasting their time. What might change that is if all libertarians used the same strategy and joined the GOP wing, making it imposing in numbers and possibly then in influence. They could certainly have a better chance of winning office by simply riding the wave of GOP partisan voting, once becoming a candidate. The primaries would be the tough part, but the message would get a better hearing.

VaughnT

November 3, 2004, 04:35 AM

To all of you folks living in Kali and similar states, and declaring that your one vote won't do Bush any good, think again.

Unfortunately, there are countless others that are, right now, saying the exact same thing. Their one vote won't count, so they're gonna vote for some third/fourth/fifth-party candidate that doesn't stand a chance of getting more than five percent of the vote.

Yes, Bush isn't that much better than Kerry. But, he is better.

Remember, you are not alone in your sentiments. You are one voter amongst thousands.

Look at the polls after the election and you'll see that a considerable percentage of votes went to third-party candidates. This percentage will be drastically smaller than that of Bush or Kerry, but imagine if that total percentage was added to either of the two main parties.

Your one vote does matter. Don't give up the fight just because it seems hopeless.

Will voting for the green party really make a powerful statement? Will a resounding win for Bush make an even more powerful declaration of our nation's desires?

Is it better for this country to appear divided, with Bush only winning by a hair? Or, is it better for the incumbent, flawed as he might be, to be seen as strongly supported by the overwhelming majority of Citizens of this great Nation?

RealGun

November 3, 2004, 05:28 AM

This percentage will be drastically smaller than that of Bush or Kerry, but imagine if that total percentage was added to either of the two main parties.

While firmly in favor of voting for Bush, I have no quarrel with some form of feedback that neither party deserves a total mandate. I would rather see that as some form of sincere dissention within wings of those parties. Rubber stamped solidarity is crap.

If you enjoyed reading about "Here Is The Deal On November 2nd" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!